I don't believe that has been defined. It has been left deliberately vague to
allow precedents from the wild to set this.
My definition would be examples such as:
A form, such as a contact form, has been rewritten (HTML) or restyled
visually. It makes sense to extrapolate this to things you could call a
widget or component: a navigation menu, a table, a search function,
a banner landmark area.
A switch to another CMS.
A visual restyling even if it claims to not change the content or HTML.
Additions of any departments (for example, a municipality starts hosting
a section on their own site about solar panel subsidies when this was
available on another website earlier).
> I have come across organisations that claim they are meeting
> accessibility standards but are basing this on audits that are 4+ years
> old which would clearly be out of data.
If the only thing that's changed on a site was the text on the page, it's
possible if it was accessible before, it still is. It's just that people seem
to constantly want to change websites that work fine "because it's
old."
cheers,
Mallory
On Thu, May 30, 2019, at 8:53 AM, James A. wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Thanks for the comments so far. I completely agree with the need to
> test regularly and embed accessibility within the development process.
>
> However, my question was slightly different. This relates to
> regulations coming in Europe that are similar to 508 requirements. In
> some cases the accessibility requirement comes in after "substantial
> revisions" to the site. Hence I am after examples of what changes would
> be considered substantial enough to have significantly changed the
> accessibility of the site. Is there any regulations or best practice
> that has a similar trigger for accessibility to be checked?
>
> I have come across organisations that claim they are meeting
> accessibility standards but are basing this on audits that are 4+ years
> old which would clearly be out of data.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Abi
